FTFA: Wisecarver said staff always explain to women that they are not a medical office and direct them to make an appointment at a doctor's office, adding that they even pay for women's doctor's visits.

I fail to understand why the State is legally permitted to fund non-medical centers that dispense demonstrably false medical information. DIsclaimer notwithstanding, this is for all intents and purposes practicing medicine without a license.

FTFA:We feel that a woman's fertility is a normal thing -- you have to take meds when you're sick, not when you're healthy, and all medication has side effects. I took birth control for years didn't know how sick it was making me until I stopped."

What she "feels" does not deserve state funding any more than my "feelings" do. While it is true that all medications have side effects, the fact is that women also take hormonal contraceptives for medical reasons entirely unrelated to pregnancy. Again this is practicing medicine without a license. Why isn't NARAL pushing for their prosecution?

Somacandra:I fail to understand why the State is legally permitted to fund non-medical centers that dispense demonstrably false medical information. DIsclaimer notwithstanding, this is for all intents and purposes practicing medicine without a license.

The counselor also told the woman that condoms are not effective at preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases because they are "naturally porous."

This one I've always wondered about how people can think it works that way.

Step 1) Fill a bottle with water.Step 2) Unroll a condom and stick it over the mouth of the bottle.Step 3) Flip the bottle over so the water flows into the condom.Step 4) Note the lack of water flowing out of the "pores" in the condom.

If it effectively holds water, it's going to hold back sperm. Sure if you filled a condom with sperm laden fluid and put it under pressure and left it inside a woman for an extended period of time then some might well escape. But given how few sperm actually make it to the egg even when there's nothing impeding their progress the chances of pregnancy are rather slim.

NkThrasher:The counselor also told the woman that condoms are not effective at preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases because they are "naturally porous."

This one I've always wondered about how people can think it works that way.

Step 1) Fill a bottle with water.Step 2) Unroll a condom and stick it over the mouth of the bottle.Step 3) Flip the bottle over so the water flows into the condom.Step 4) Note the lack of water flowing out of the "pores" in the condom.

If it effectively holds water, it's going to hold back sperm. Sure if you filled a condom with sperm laden fluid and put it under pressure and left it inside a woman for an extended period of time then some might well escape. But given how few sperm actually make it to the egg even when there's nothing impeding their progress the chances of pregnancy are rather slim.

Anyone who's ever made a water balloon out of a condom should know that claim is pure horseshiat.

NkThrasher:The counselor also told the woman that condoms are not effective at preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases because they are "naturally porous."

This one I've always wondered about how people can think it works that way.

Step 1) Fill a bottle with water.Step 2) Unroll a condom and stick it over the mouth of the bottle.Step 3) Flip the bottle over so the water flows into the condom.Step 4) Note the lack of water flowing out of the "pores" in the condom.

If it effectively holds water, it's going to hold back sperm. Sure if you filled a condom with sperm laden fluid and put it under pressure and left it inside a woman for an extended period of time then some might well escape. But given how few sperm actually make it to the egg even when there's nothing impeding their progress the chances of pregnancy are rather slim.

It doesn't even make any sense if you're too lazy to test it yourself. For it to be true, the condom companies would have to be incredibly incompetent. What, they didn't notice that their condoms leak? They couldn't find anything in the entire world that didn't leak after a few centuries of trying? It's not exactly brain surgery, it's saran wrap for your cock.

This thread has more illogical claims per insult than a Politics thread. How can anyone think that there is sex with zero risk of pregnancy (risk is valid for heterosex only I suppose) or STDs (everyone is at risk)? Nobody who is aware of the existence of statistics, actuarial science, or how materials work, could think that. You don't even need to understand stats or engineering, you just have to know they exist, in order to get the point.

LordJiro:Well, to be fair, the quote as quoted is accurate. There is no such thing as 100% safe sex. Condoms and other prophylactics break, and birth control doesn't prevent STDs,

I DNRTFA, though, so I'm assuming there is a lot more derp besides the headline quote.

If we're using those criteria, then abstinence is not 100% effective either, because you might get raped, or sit in a hot tub with a guy who gets a little too excited, or impregnated by God or something.

/ Also, effectiveness rates for birth control methods tend to take into account both "perfect use" and "typical use." I've never heard an abstinence advocate do the "typical use" analysis for abstinence...

Bennie Crabtree:This thread has more illogical claims per insult than a Politics thread. How can anyone think that there is sex with zero risk of pregnancy (risk is valid for heterosex only I suppose) or STDs (everyone is at risk)? Nobody who is aware of the existence of statistics, actuarial science, or how materials work, could think that. You don't even need to understand stats or engineering, you just have to know they exist, in order to get the point.

Bennie Crabtree:This thread has more illogical claims per insult than a Politics thread. How can anyone think that there is sex with zero risk of pregnancy (risk is valid for heterosex only I suppose) or STDs (everyone is at risk)? Nobody who is aware of the existence of statistics, actuarial science, or how materials work, could think that. You don't even need to understand stats or engineering, you just have to know they exist, in order to get the point.

Once again, right wingers show their true colors: not interested in doing anything to promote health, they just want to punish women for daring to have nonprocreative, non-married sex. The right wing is no better than the Taliban, they just use a different book of fairy stories.

netgamer7k:Was sex talked about this much back like 50 years ago? It's farkin' on the news every day.

Because the church is losing. People know sex is fun, and methods of preventing pregnancy let you have the fun without the headache of kids. CPC's would rather women get pregnant and be forced to carry the kid to term as a punishment for having fun.

But that is the crisis workers' point exactly. Yet posters in this thread are calling her names and saying she is incorrect.

/ugh this is a Politics htread after all//Bites? I acutally thought everyone had me on ignore by now

Sex with a condom is much safer than sex without a condom. Obviously nothing is 100% and some diseases like herpes can be spread even when a condom is used, but a person will be better served employing a condom when engaging in intercourse.

Bennie Crabtree:This thread has more illogical claims per insult than a Politics thread. How can anyone think that there is sex with zero risk of pregnancy (risk is valid for heterosex only I suppose) or STDs (everyone is at risk)? Nobody who is aware of the existence of statistics, actuarial science, or how materials work, could think that. You don't even need to understand stats or engineering, you just have to know they exist, in order to get the point.

NkThrasher:The counselor also told the woman that condoms are not effective at preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases because they are "naturally porous."

This one I've always wondered about how people can think it works that way.

Step 1) Fill a bottle with water.Step 2) Unroll a condom and stick it over the mouth of the bottle.Step 3) Flip the bottle over so the water flows into the condom.Step 4) Note the lack of water flowing out of the "pores" in the condom.

If it effectively holds water, it's going to hold back sperm. Sure if you filled a condom with sperm laden fluid and put it under pressure and left it inside a woman for an extended period of time then some might well escape. But given how few sperm actually make it to the egg even when there's nothing impeding their progress the chances of pregnancy are rather slim.

This reminds me of when some people (aka Alex Jones and his moronic followers) claim that HIV is smaller than the pores on a condom and can slip through; therefore, condoms are completely ineffective against HIV.

I always liked the concept of states rights but this kind of continued garbage by these conservative nutjobs is why it doesn't work. Do we have to wait for the boomers to die off for all this irrelevant culture war crap to finally go away?

Soup4Bonnie:Of course what they are doing is horrible, but how farking stupid do you have to be to believe something like "Condoms are naturally porous."

What, you've never inflated a condom with helium and noted that it stopped floating after a couple of days?

/aluminized mylar prophylactics are the wave of the future//used to prefer the durex nonlatex over latex even though I'm not sensitive to latex//apparently durex has dropped the non-latex product and kept the old name